| From: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Increasing the length of pg_stat_activity.current_query... |
| Date: | 2004-11-06 20:43:09 |
| Message-ID: | 78339866-3034-11D9-9442-000A95C705DC@chittenden.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> I'm confused... UDP as in the UDP/IP? RPC caps UDP messages at 8K and
>> NFS over UDP often runs at 32K... where is UDP used in the backend?
>
> pgstat messages travel over UDP/IP.
Over the loopback interface, right? Then why worry about
fragmentation? This seems like premature optimization/prevention. A
lost packet over lo0 is symptom of a bigger problem. The contents of
pgstat messages are probably the least of an admins concerns if that's
happening.
Having a 1K query isn't uncommon on some of the stuff I work on, an 8K
query... that's a tad different and would stick out like a sore thumb.
Would you be open to increasing this further after the 8.0 release? I
haven't heard of anyone complaining about dropped/fragmented pgstat
messages. :) -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-06 20:52:44 | Re: relative_path() seems overly complicated and buggy |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-06 20:34:51 | Re: Increasing the length of pg_stat_activity.current_query... |